Charlie Kirk: Aftermath, Gravedancing, and Manhunt

Djinni Djohn said:
what else could be used for a proper parody of the event?
Click to expand...
For ideas, Cruelty Squad delivers a lot of its dark humor by way of random civilian dialog. There's also enemy placement and level design in general. Like with the absurd hallways leading to pits, the vomit-inducing textures, and drug usage indicated by the presence of the bouncy castle mutants. You could have chatty and violent leftists inside the campus itself, for example. Add minor jokes here and there using enemy placement; liberals don't know shit about guns but attack on impulse, so give this group's hostiles some weak dogshit pistols or some such, etc. Have a safe space room filled with tons of the horrible naked flesh dolls that scream nonstop as commentary on how sex-obsessed the leftoids are, yet their leftoid-captured campuses infantalize them.

It's hard for me to actually come up with anything regarding the actual open-air stage of the debate, though. I don't like thinking about Charlie Kirk dying like that. (:_(
 
Screenshot 2025-09-18 at 00-23-03 MoshiMoshiMoan on X Hasan sperging out lmfao. _ X.webp

Screenshot 2025-09-18 at 00-26-25 hasanabi on X EVERY CORPORATION IS INSTANTLY FOLDING TO THE...webp
 
soy_king said:
The alternative is believing that natural rights are everything else that's bestowed from a higher power to mankind that exists outside of human-created law. That sounds nice in theory, but as a result you have people creating all sorts of nonsense as "natural rights." The right to privacy was subsequently interpreted as the right to bodily privacy, which became the right to an abortion and the right to marital privacy, which became the right to gay marriage. It's much better if our system relies on clearly defined constitutional rights that can be supplemented by legislatures rather than by the whims of nine unelected old fucks who either graduated from HLS or Yale Law.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. The idea was that every power the federal government has would have to be an explicit amendment to the constitution. And I commented about the 14th amendment in another post, but I think that goes more to your point. Before the 14th, when the Constitution didn't apply to states, states were the entities that had more domestic power. The whole dichotomy was different. ALL other powers belonged to the States, and Constitutional limits did not apply to States.

> In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the Privileges or Immunities Clause further incorporated the Bill of Rights against state governments or transferred police power to the federal government.
> The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies the Fifth Amendment's similar clause to state governments.

This is also where your the "right to privacy" spawned from.

Disastrous.
 
Last edited:
Aussie_Autizzy said:
He earns $16 mil a year. Also, he wasn't fired only suspended, and still getting paid. I'm sure he's not too devastated
Click to expand...
No, ideologues fucking hate losing their platform. Once they get lost in the sauce of talking shit, they value the ability to talk shit more than any amount of money they can ever have.

Actually, thinking about it, I can guarantee that this won't be the last we'll see of Jimmy Kimmel. Surely he'll desperately look for a new channel to infest, or try to pull a Tucker Carlson and start his own dogshit Twitter Bluesky propaganda house.
 
DickMain said:
I'm in deep red country, and through all of last week there was both an increased police presence in town along with dozens upon dozens of pickups sporting every flag to make trannies LITCHERALLY genocide themselves. American flags, thin blue line, don't tread on me, the stars & bars; you name it, they flew it.
Click to expand...
The lunchroom usually has fox news on and the liberals at work are fucking irritated that they have to constantly have to hear about Charlie's death.

One dude who I thought was semi normal and could be a helldivers 2 crossover buddy called charlie a piece of shit. It's a shame because I get along with them, but I'll be sure to avoid these people after work.

I told other co-workers (in-private) who hold my views to start carrying from now on and stockpile ammo.

On a brighter note, My dad is shifting farther right and sending me "my politics in 2016 Vs My politics this past week" tier memes. He gets me.

Haven't seen anything in memorial or protest in my neck of the woods, it's been mostly quiet on either side.
 
Ludicrous Moneybags said:
Totally disagree. The idea was that every power the federal government has would have to be an explicit amendment to the constitution. And I commented about the 14th amendment in another post, but I think that goes more to your point. Before the 14th, when the Constitution didn't apply to states, states were the entities that had more domestic power. The whole dichotomy was different. ALL other powers belonged to the States, and Constitutional limits did not apply to States.

> In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the Privileges or Immunities Clause further incorporated the Bill of Rights against state governments or transferred police power to the federal government.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourt...nited_States_Constitution#cite_note-Beatty-31"><span></span></a>

Disastrous.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree. The Slaughterhouse Cases essentially destroyed the Privileges and Immunities Clause as a vehicle for enforcing federal power on private parties and instead forced us to rely on the way more destructive Commerce Clause instead. I'm referring more to Substantive Due Process and the disaster of Griswold and its successors that culminated in Obergefell.
 
soy_king said:
Don't disagree. The Slaughterhouse Cases essentially destroyed the Privileges and Immunities Clause as a vehicle for enforcing federal power on private parties and instead forced us to rely on the way more destructive Commerce Clause instead. I'm referring more to Substantive Due Process and the disaster of Griswold and its successors that culminated in Obergefell.
Click to expand...
My bad, I misread that when I was quoting it. But I still think that the fundamental power shift of the federal controlling all domestic affairs is a massive problem, and every little thing the federal government does should be viewed prejudicially through very narrow amendments, that do not apply to States. I think that was their original idea, and I think it was a good one.
 
Twix Eatr said:
I don't want them in my society whatsoever. Bro, cheering on someone who was murdered for engaging in respectful debate means they are our ENEMIES. Fuck are they going to use that money for, donating to left-wing rags that will continue demonizing us normies?
Click to expand...
I made a follow up post to elaborate on what I said, but the TLDR is that if someone celebrating hasn't seen the unedited video then they need to. If they have, they should be reported to the authorities because they're a danger to the public.
Most of these people don't even HAVE jobs to begin with. And even if they do, you're not removing them from society by getting them shitcanned, if anything you're just giving them more free time and a bigger axe to grind. I'm not saying 'do nothing' and I understand how this would serve them right but I just don't see a massive cancellation brigade turning out well in the long run. It's either going to made the pendulum swiftly swing hard to the left later, OR these people will be out on the street causing more problems as a last ditch effort to be noticed.

It's like the whole country is being psyop'd into voluntarily ripping itself in half. Who would benefit the most from that? I wonder.
 
Ludicrous Moneybags said:
My bad, I misread that when I was quoting it. But I still think that the fundamental power shift of the federal controlling all domestic affairs is a massive problem, and every little thing the federal government does should be viewed prejudicially through very narrow amendments, that do not apply to States. I think that was their original idea, and I think it was a good one.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. I wholly support the idea that the states should have more power and involvement in our daily lives as opposed to the federal government. I think the biggest issue with that is a lack of focus in news coverage and reporting on state issues over federal, since anyone who's even slightly politically involved knows who their federal reps are but are completely clueless as to who represents them on a state level, much less what laws are being pushed through their state houses.

I will say that the one good thing about the 14th Amendment's interpretation is that the Bill of Rights now applies to the states. Imagine a world where New York or California didn't have to abide by the First or Second Amendments.
 
Manimal House said:
I'm not saying 'do nothing' and I understand how this would serve them right but I just don't see a massive cancellation brigade turning out well in the long run. It's either going to made the pendulum swiftly swing hard to the left later, OR these people will be out on the street causing more problems as a last ditch effort to be noticed.
Click to expand...
Would you rather have a far-left maniac who thinks Charlie Kirk deserved to die teaching your children, giving you medical treatment, or on the streets? Where do you think they're going to do the least amount of damage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom